The ex filed her declaration on June 15th, 1998. Of course she wants more support. She also countered visitation with 4 weeks during the summer, alternating Easter vacation, each and every Fathers Day and alternating Christmas vacation. Keith requested SHE pay for all visitation transportation she she moved with out of state with out his ok or the authorization from the court. SHE’S requesting they “share equally in the cost of transportation.” She also lied in her declaration. My comments are in ( ).
A final Judgment was entered on September 29, 1990. (Um, no it wasn’t. Check the records again.)
Our final judgment was silent as to the issue of whether I could relocate with our two minor children. Therefore, I consulted with an E. C. attorney who suggested I provide Respondent with thirty days written notice. Accordingly, I followed this attorney’s advise and provided Respondent with thirty days written notice. I sent this notice to Respondent via certified Mail, return receipt requested. I am surprised that Respondent would raise this issue in his Declaration. It appears to me that if Respondent would have had a problem with me relocating he would have raised the issue earlier. It has been 5 years since I relocated. (He did raise the issue, in February 1993, when those court papers were drawn up in February. He didn’t sign them because he didn’t want the kids to leave. He also didn’t have time to consult an attorney because he was shown these papers the weekend of Feb 5th, 1993 and you left, according to a letter to his employer, on or Feb. 12th, 1993. That was the only “documentation” he ever received about your intent to move. He also brought it up again in the November 1995 declaration/letter to your attorney, and that was only 2 years after. You refused to discuss anything but an increase in support. Now in 1998, he brings it up again. That’s 3 times.)
Respondent states in his Declaration that I dictate which visitation Respondent should have. This is not true. (This is VERY true. Letters and phone calls prove that.)
At the beginning of the year, I suggest to Respondent certain dates and times for visitation. Respondent and I then negotiate until we mutually agree upon Respondents visitation schedule for the entire year. (HA! Um, NO, that’s not how that went, at all. YOU preferred visitation be scheduled and paid for upfront annually, and taken care of all at once, because you could afford to do it that way, but that’s not how it went. Visitation was discussed when it was up to you. Whenever Keith was ready to buy the tickets, you weren’t. It was ALWAYS a battle to get the visitation Keith wanted especially during the summer. It was bad enough he had to start sharing his time with your mom, but as far as summer went, what he requested and what he got were two different things. #FACTS.)
Respondent also states that I require him to pay for all costs of visitation. This is not true. Respondent and I have shared equally in the transportation costs for our children since February 1993. ( NOT True. 1993-February – saw kids for 4 days, before you left to Las Vegas to get married then move to WA state. Spring- DENIED- said you could not afford to send them and they were still getting used to the new area. Winter- DENIED. You kept the kids to spend time with your family in SD.
1994- Spring- You kept the kids, Summer- DENIED even though you were sent $400. Tickets were $198 per person. Winter- 4 days, Keith paid $248 for 4 days because you cancelled his two weeks with the kids and gave all but the 4 days to your mom.
1995- Spring-DENIED, Summer- only allowed 2 but took 3 weeks- you, your husband and his son dropped the kids off. On May 22nd, a letter from you was received saying not only that you “have the right to authorize visitation as I see fit…the divorce papers say that visitation is up to me, if you disagree let’s go back to court…” and that Keith would only get the kids from July 2nd- July 15th and that he had to pay full fare, one way for both kids to travel from LA to Sacramento so they can see your mom. When you called 7/1, you asked Keith why he was only keeping the kids until the 15th. You said you had sent another letter telling him if he was had vacation until the 23rd, and when he told you he never got that letter, you said, “Oh, too bad.” One was never sent and you knew that. You ALSO called the cops on Keith and told them he took the kids out of the County of SD and was holding them against their will. Since you had told Keith he could keep them until the 22nd, he kept the kids for a 3rd week, which you took issue with. You said your “contribution to airfare” was your fuel expense bringing the kids to him AFTER your vacation in SD, when it was convenient for you. Keith paid approx. $72.00 (x2) + $35 (UnAccom. Minor Fee)totaling approx $180.00. Winter- DENIED- according to your attorney, you were keeping the kids, you had taken two weeks off work, you were having out of town company coming in. Keith even offered to pay for transportation costs. You said NO)
1996- Got Kids for one week. Keith paid $161. Not sure what you paid though Maybe less, if mileage benefit was applied.. Summer- DENIED. You had already said Keith can have the kids from 8/11 – 8/30. We had to move by 8/12. Keith told you this, and he Keith requested the kids for a week from 8/24- 8/31, still within the time frame you said. You called Keith on 8/20 telling he can’t see the kids, “but there’s always Christmas.” Keith said, “whatever you say, I’ll talk to you later” and hung up. Winter- DENIED- 10/29 you called and asked Keith about splitting airfare 3 ways and splitting his vacation time with the kids, with your mom. He asked if you can buy the tickets and he would reimburse you. You said you had to think about it. He called you on 11/19, you hadn’t decided. 11/24- you said NO.
1997-Spring- got kids for the week. We paid $169 + $10 wire fee to wire you the money. She paid, $169. Summer- got kids 4 weeks. We paid $203 + $10 wire fee to wire you the money. You paid $203. Christmas- Got kids- paid $268+ $10 towards your fuel expense + $10 UAM fee to you. You paid $268. Keith also gave up 3 days of his time with the kids so they can spend time with your family, and quite possibly you too. Fair? Equal? Hardly.
1998- Spring- got kids 1 week- paid $204 +$20 towards her fuel expense to drive from SD to LA. Fair? Equal? Hardly, but again, if he didn’t contribute to your fuel expense, you would not have let him see the kids.)
With respect to Respondent’s requested visitation, I would agree to the following: a) Four (4) weeks during summer vacation; b) Alternating Easter vacation; c) Each and every Father’s Day Weekend; d) Alternating Christmas vacation. I will agree to the above-mentioned visitation schedule and to share equally in the cost of transportation. (each and every Father’s Day Weekend? Really? WHY hasn’t he had the kids Father’s Day ANY year? He IS their Father. OH WAIT, because EVERY year, the 3rd Sunday of June is ALWAYS so Close to your daughter’s birthday, and can’t have Keith celebrating EITHER with his kids, right? Hasn’t happened so far….)
Respondent has additionally requested unobstructed telephone contact with our two children. I have never interfered with any telephone contact nor do I plan to in the future. (CRAZY how your Response Declaration was filed today, 6/15/98. Really? Then WHY did Keith have to ask to speak to his daughter 15- 18 times when he called this evening? Because YOU weren’t obstructing telephone contact huh? I call BS.
CHILD SUPPORT: It is respectfully requested that this court order Guideline child support in the amount of $1,046.00. (based on income, Time share of 10% and Mandatory deductions of Respondents.) (ALL based on incorrect income, according to check stubs. Anything over and above his guaranteed pay is OT which is not readily available.)
Respondent’s Request for Hardship Deduction: It is respectfully requested that Respondent’s request for a hardship be denied. It is not fair to my children that Respondent has recently had a new baby with his current wife, or my responsibility to support his step-daughter. Respondent’s wife’s child and Respondent’s new baby should be supported by Respondent and his new wife. (I do believe he got this hardship)
Tax Filing: (She got it, Keith never mentioned it.)
Spousal Support: I agree that the SD Superior Court should terminate jurisdiction over the issue of spousal support because of my remarriage. (good)
Attorney’s Fees and Court Costs: Due to the substantial disparity between my income and Respondents income, it will be necessary for Respondent to make a reasonable contribution to my attorney’s fees and court costs. A substantial contribution is necessary so that I can properly present my case. Based upon the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that Respondent make a reasonable contribution toward my attorneys fees and court costs. (Um, you’ve perjured yourself….and it can be proven)
CONCERNING RESPONDENTS REQUEST FOR PERSONAL CONDUCT RESTRAINING ORDER: I have no reason to contact Respondent other than issues dealing with our minor children. In fact, Respondent and I have not communicated verbally in the last three years on any issue, other than the children. On the other hand, it is Respondents new Wife that consistently calls my home, to harass me. (Well, isn’t THAT a bold face lie. THAT can be proven as perjury as well. You have called Keith and berated him because it was MY writing on a box, or because I sent the kids a letter, which you returned, and these incidences happened within the last 3 years. Let’s not get started on your phone calls to ME, personally that are severely harassing.)
Transportation Costs: It is respectfully requested that Respondent and I share equally in all costs of transportation for the purpose of visitation. (you mean, airfare, airport to airport.)
Insurance for the Minor Children: Respondent maintains the primary insurance through his employment and my current husband maintains secondary insurance for our children through his employment. Our prior court order, filed December 21, 1995, requires Respondent and I to share equally in all uncovered medical, dental, orthodontia, vision or psychological costs incurred for the benefit of our minor children. However, Respondent failed and refused to reimburse me any uncovered costs. Therefore, Respondent and I agreed that I would continue to receive the day care in the amount of $100. 00 per month as and for reimbursement toward the uncovered medical costs. Specifically, the cost of our son’s braces was $3,200.00. Respondent has reimbursed me via the day care payment. The day care stopped being incurred in June 1996. (so you got Child Care for 6 months, then continued to keep the $100 for it to go towards your son’s braces. If I’m not mistaken, the $3200 is TOTAL, not after insurance, payments, and discounts, etc. Will have to look more into this. What I DO know, is that you had a hard time sending and at times refused to send copies of the EOB’s from your insurance. You’ve been under the impression that Keith pays what YOU say. That’s not how this works.)
RESTRAINING ORDERS: Respondent has requested that I be restrained with any of his mailings to our children. I have never interfered with any letters, cards, or gifts that Respondent has sent. Respondent also requests that I be restrained from making any disparaging comments about Respondent or his wife. I would never speak negatively about Respondent or his wife in the presence of our children. This would not be in the best interest of our two minor children. Respondent knows that our children come first and I would never do anything to interfere with Respondent’s relationship with our children. (MOST DEFINITELY DEBATABLE. There is proof to the contrary.)
AIRLINE TRANSPORTATION: It is respectfully requested that our children fly out of S for their visitation with Respondent. The reason I am requesting that they fly out of S is because of the substantial decrease in the cost of the airline ticket from S. I do not mind driving the additional four hours in an effort to reduce the cost of transportation. In the event of bad winter, it is impossible for me to drive from (her town) to S because of the road closings. Therefore, in the event the weather does not permit me to drive to S, it is respectfully requested that the children fly out of (her town) or Sp airport. (it seems that more often than not, there would be a long layover or change of planes in S if the kids flew from one of the other more local airports, and that’s what you didn’t want and Keith didn’t feel safe about that either. )
If I were called as a witness in this proceeding, I could and would competently testify to the facts stated herein. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of CA that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 6th day of June, 1998, at SD, CA.
Her attorney signed the verification form regarding her Declaration, on June 12th, and it was filed on June 15th.